April 03, 2017, 12:09:56 am

TimothyJB NewDawnSupreme General of Seek and Destroy, previously of The Crimson BrotherhoodDedicated clan lag switcher and founder of the SaltyBitch™ clubDarkfall will never succeed without local banking kangaroo mounts

We're open to add to the rule. Seems like there is only one prominent case of holding in reach of an NPC city anyway.Initially we limited it to siege stones to keep the possibility for cannons to shoot at siegestones/watchtowers from NPC cities, giving a hard lock area through the rule and then a soft lock area through the risk of canons.

Should we keep it as such and only say "shooting at a holding from a cannon/warhulk in an NPC city is forbidden" to keep the soft lock area?Or should we prevent war machines from NPC cities entirely?

We're leaning for the first but we would like the opinion of the community.

We're open to add to the rule. Seems like there is only one prominent case of holding in reach of an NPC city anyway.Initially we limited it to siege stones to keep the possibility for cannons to shoot at siegestones/watchtowers from NPC cities, giving a hard lock area through the rule and then a soft lock area through the risk of canons.

Should we keep it as such and only say "shooting at a holding from a cannon/warhulk in an NPC city is forbidden" to keep the soft lock area?Or should we prevent war machines from NPC cities entirely?

We're leaning for the first but we would like the opinion of the community.

We're open to add to the rule. Seems like there is only one prominent case of holding in reach of an NPC city anyway.Initially we limited it to siege stones to keep the possibility for cannons to shoot at siegestones/watchtowers from NPC cities, giving a hard lock area through the rule and then a soft lock area through the risk of canons.

Should we keep it as such and only say "shooting at a holding from a cannon/warhulk in an NPC city is forbidden" to keep the soft lock area?Or should we prevent war machines from NPC cities entirely?

We're leaning for the first but we would like the opinion of the community.

Make shooting an enemy bindstone turn you gray.

If it's blue vs blue, then yes. Otherwise, no.

Quote

"Our title system is an expansion of the titles in the same spirit than the destroyer title. These will NOT be classes and will be completely optional."

A discussion with a player that made a good case that a siegestone, and later watchtowers, right out of zaap tower range was not much less "protected" than if it was in the zaap tower range.We wanted these kind of placement to be double edged swords, and disallowing cannons in NPC cities would be equivalent to having half a flank of a siege stone/camp/watchtower protected.

But this is a good occasion to open a debate. Perhaps we need to simply prevent placement altogether in a wider area, but then that leaves a lot more of the world unable to be fought over, and we do want wars between competing clans, even within racial territory.

A discussion with a player that made a good case that a siegestone, and later watchtowers, right out of zaap tower range was not much less "protected" than if it was in the zaap tower range.We wanted these kind of placement to be double edged swords, and disallowing cannons in NPC cities would be equivalent to having half a flank of a siege stone/camp/watchtower protected.

But this is a good occasion to open a debate. Perhaps we need to simply prevent placement altogether in a wider area, but then that leaves a lot more of the world unable to be fought over, and we do want wars between competing clans, even within racial territory.

If entering a clans holding turns one gray why would attacking something assigned to the clan not do the same? They arent going gray for attacking a blue but for invading a clans space which should include attacking their assets, clan boxes, siege stones or anything assigned to that clan.